Haroon ‘Harry’ Mahmood (pictured below), relief manager at a Well branch in Darlaston, West Midlands was voted by C+D readers as the winner of the Above and Beyond award – a new category celebrating stories of pharmacists and pharmacy staff who go the extra mile for their patients and the sector.
Mr Mahmood’s story of delivering aftercare – including bringing essential items such as milk and bread – to two elderly patients discharged from hospital, was named the winner by C+D readers in an online vote last month.
Read Mr Mahmood’s full entry here.
The winners were announced at the sold-out event at the Intercontinental Park Lane in London last night, hosted by comedian Meera Syal (pictured above, right).
London-based Medipharmacy group received two C+D Awards during the night. Its website was named Online Initiative of the Year, while its robotic dispensing system was crowned Business Initiative of the Year – a category which also saw Rowlands’ ‘dispensing excellence’ scheme highly commended by the judges.
The Community Pharmacist of the Year trophy went to Elizabeth Lawless of The Health Dispensary in Neath, Wales, who has a skillset the judges found “particularly impressive”, while John Low pharmacy in Consett was crowned Independent Pharmacy of the Year.
Abs Bashir of West Midlands Cooperative Chemists was named Manager of the Year, with Day Lewis’s Amir Adam highly commended by the judges.
In his opening speech, C+D editor James Waldron said the awards are “a chance to step away from the headlines and take a look at the incredible work you and your teams do every day”.
“What all of these entries have in common is a willingness to adapt, innovate and – above all – an ability to inspire their colleagues and healthcare counterparts,” he told the guests.
Read the write-ups for every winner and shortlist – as well as find out for the first time who came runner up in each category – on the C+D Awards website.
How were the C+D Awards judged?
C+D selected 28 judges, designed to reflect the breadth of community pharmacy, and the wider healthcare sector. Each individual was asked to judge between one and three categories, with a different combination of between two and four individuals judging each category.
To ensure the process was fair and unbiased, the judging was done independently – with no judge informed who else was judging their categories, or who had won their categories.
